2004
Volume 29, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1385-1535
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7324

Abstract

Abstract

Research collaboration between practitioners and research professionals aims to develop both practice and knowledge. However, a tension can arise between these objectives: to preserve local relevance, the content, form, and timing of data collection may vary between cases, complicating the comparability of local data in a multiple case study. Our Research-Practice Partnership found a solution in the ‘wallpaper method,’ which enriches the Storyline-method with elements from reflexive monitoring and arts-based research. A distinctive feature of the wallpaper method is cumulative joint reflection and interpretation based on previously collected local data. In this contribution, we illustrate the various phases and steps of the method with experiences from our own research in which it was developed and tested. The method resulted in both practice development and an overarching conceptual model. Effective application of the method requires a wide range of professional and research competencies from the collaboration partners. Adequate time and attention are necessary to prepare a partnership for this.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/KWA2024.3.012.ROZE
2024-11-01
2024-12-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beijaard, D., Van Driel, J., & Verloop, N. (1999). Evaluation of the story-line methodology in research on teachers’ practical knowledge. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 24(1999), 47-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(99)00009-7
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Consortium Tools voor Teamleren (2022). Samen onderzoekend werken in het mbo. Praktijkboek voor docenten. NRO. https://www.onderwijskennis.nl/sites/onderwijskennis/files/media-files/samen_onderzoekend_werken_in_het_mbo_praktijkboek_voor_docenten_1.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., & Van Aken, J. E. (2008). Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organization Studies, 29(3), 393-413. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247734813_Developing_Design_Propositions_Through_Research_Synthesis
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Migchelbrink, F. (2016). De kern van participatief actieonderzoek. SWP.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Smaling, A. (2009). Generaliseerbaarheid in kwalitatief onderzoek. KWALON, 14(3), 5-12. https://www.aup-online.com/content/journals/10.5117/2009.014.003.002?crawler=true&mimetype=application/pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Van den Berg, N., Teurlings, C., & Rozendaal, J. S. (2024). Samen onderzoekend werken in een consortium van onderwijs- en onderzoeksprofessionals: verslag van een zelfonderzoek naar de werking als Research Practice Partnership. Tijdschrift OnderwijsPraktijk Studies. https://tijdschrifttops.nl/article/view/13959/20500
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Van Heijst, P., De Vos, N., & Keinemans, S. (red.). (2019). Arts-based research voor het sociaal domein. Op kunsten gebaseerd praktijkgericht onderzoek. Coutinho.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Van Mierlo, B., Regeer, B., Van Amstel, M., Arkensteijn, M., Beekman, V., Bunders, J., De Cock, T., Elzen, B., Hoes, A-H., & Leeuwis. C. (2010). Reflexieve monitoring in actie. Handvatten voor de monitoring van systeeminnovatieprojecten. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46385515_Reflexieve_monitoring_in_actie_Handvatten_voor_de_monitoring_van_systeeminnovatieprojecten
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/KWA2024.3.012.ROZE
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/KWA2024.3.012.ROZE
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error